V.Ramani v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 329(3) and 305(a) of BNS in Crime No.659 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant claims to be jointly running an establishment under the name and style of "SHAH'S Makeover Academy" along with her brother. On 14.01.2026, the owner of the premises, namely the first petitioner and his son locked the premises and left. Thereafter, the defacto complainant is stated to have lodged a complaint before the police. On 20.06.2026, when the defacto complainant visited the premises, she found certain persons carrying out painting work therein. On enquiry, the said persons allegedly informed her that the first petitioner had let out the premises to them. Upon inspecting the premises, the defacto complainant found that the beauty equipment and other articles belonging to her academy, valued approximately at Rs.85 lakhs, were missing. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property and the defacto complainant is the tenant and that a civil suit is currently pending between the parties. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and they are ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 6

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and upon instructions, submitted that this is a case and counter-case and that a civil suit is pending between the parties in O.S.No.111 of 2026. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of dispute, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond each for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: Page4 of 6

(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 14-08-2026 NSL Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Inspector of Police, T4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai – 600 095.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶3The Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee. CRLoOPoNo.o22705oofo2026 N.RAMESH,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o22705oofo2026 14-08-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.RAMESH 1. V.Ramani 2. R.Kalyanaraman ..Petitioner Vs The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, T4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai – 600 095. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.659 of 2026, on the file of Madhuravoyal Police Station. For Petitioner: Mr.D.Senthil Kumar For Respondent: Mr.R.Rajasekaran Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)